Trip is an Encounter Power now

[delericho]

Then realism is irrelevant

Realism in D&D is over-rated. My goal is believability. The Fighter tripping an opponent precisely once in every encounter, and then being categorically unable to do so again until he's rested (even if the encounter is extended by the arrival of a bunch of new Orcs who didn't know about his special move so couldn't watch for it) isn't believable. Nor is it believable that is the Fighter trips the BBEG in the first round but cannot do so again "because the BBEG is watching for it", that the Fighter will be able to trip the BBEG again the next time they meet, simply because it's a new encounter.

and the argument "Tripping multiple times in a combat will get dull" is perfectly valid.

Tripping every round (or every attack) will indeed get dull, and is an entirely valid argument. Tripping twice in the encounter, because that's what the encounter happens to call for, is something that the game really should support.

 

[Bagpuss]

Tripping every round (or every attack) will indeed get dull, and is an entirely valid argument. Tripping twice in the encounter, because that's what the encounter happens to call for, is something that the game really should support.

And there is nothing yet to say the rules won't support it.

Force powers in Star Wars can be refreshed, so I wouldn't be surprised if their isn't a mechanic to refresh powers in 4E, either via feats or action points, or rolling a natural 20, etc.

 

[delericho]

And there is nothing yet to say the rules won't support it.

This is true, and if the game does include some sort of recharge mechanism then it will resolve that complaint about the per-encounter nature of the Trip power.

It still leaves the other problem, though: that a Rogue, Barbarian, or even a Fighter who hasn't taken this particular power simply cannot Trip an opponent, no matter how appropriate such an action would be, and no matter how advantageous his situation. (Yes, yes, I know: niche protection. Problem is, they're protecting a niche that doesn't need it, and niche protection is vastly overrated anyway.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is true, and if the game does include some sort of recharge mechanism then it will resolve that complaint about the per-encounter nature of the Trip power.

It still leaves the other problem, though: that a Rogue, Barbarian, or even a Fighter who hasn't taken this particular power simply cannot Trip an opponent, no matter how appropriate such an action would be, and no matter how advantageous his situation. (Yes, yes, I know: niche protection. Problem is, they're protecting a niche that doesn't need it, and niche protection is vastly overrated anyway.)

And then there is also the example of a playtest DM following the 4E DMG guidelines to resolve a special situation with a "trip-like" effect.

If you want to trip, you'll have to be sure to describe it within the situation of the combat and have the DM use these guidelines to get there. It's possible that the DM rules the situation with a different mechanic then you had hoped for, but if the end effect is still that you get a chance to drop someone on his ass, then you get your trip.

Or you pick the power, and can use it once per encounter without any further constraints...

 

[robertliguori]

The thing is, 4E's model might be lame in theory--when we argue about it here on the Internet--but 3E's model is lame in practice--what actually happens at the table when you get a trip-spammer. I don't care how many arguments I can generate on ENWorld or RPGnet or DarpaNet about how dumb it is for a cat to kill a commoner, because in my games a cat has never fought a commoner. It's never happened. I can comfortably say it never will happen. Nor will I ever, ever have a fight against turtle-men that can't get up once they've been knocked down, but since they're mind-controlled you can't just kill them.

These contrived events, these gamer gedankenexperiments, don't happen at the table, and all I care about is what happens at the table. Likewise, I don't care if, here on ENWorld, we can come up with all sorts of "wacky tripping scenarios" for 4E (or "wacky falling then getting poisoned and then healing naturally scenarios" in every edition of the game)--I only care if I can make it sound good at the table. From everything I've gathered, it sounds like I can, so I'm not going to worry about the philosophical purity of the rules.

Point the first: They don't happen at your table. You never have to adjucate the result of a cat or catlike creature (possibly a wildshaped halfing druid) facing off against a commoner (because you choose to wave it away).

Likewise, there have been examples in my games of scenarios in which the optimal move had been for one party to accept the temporary badness of the untrained trip attempt (namely, he was facing a high-AC foe who could only be hit by 19+s by the high-accuracy members of the group, but could be touch-attacked, and could be pounced upon by the group all at once if his AC was lowered (by being group-flanked and prone, for instance).

But more to the point, a person should be able to walk up and try to knock another person over. They might get a sword in the gut for their troubles, and they might not have a terribly good chance of success if they haven't practiced, but it's something that I think is important enough to have rules for.

Point the second:

You know, I'm just going to go ahead and name it the Kamikaze Midget fallacy, since he's explained it so many times. The fact that 3.XE does something poorly does not excuse 4E for also doing it poorly, or especially for doing it poorly in a different and horrible way. The 4E trip mechanic was broken by spiked chains and Improved Trip offering free attacks; remove these two problem elements (heck, even remove one of them) and you limit the problem. Plus, if you have the level of mechanical optimization that leads to a gatling-tripper build, then you should be thankful that the player isn't playing a primary caster (or a druid).

Point the third:
Abilities that cause unexplained narrative editing are poor communicative tools to allow the characters to understand the universe. Phrasing a martial trip power as always trying to trip but only getting the opportunity implies that if the opponent ceases to ward himself, you should get another one. Now, if you don't care overmuch about characters being able to logically reach conclusions about the world based on the evidence presented, sure, go ahead. However, a lot of us think that it's important for characters, hero and non, to have the ability to ask "If this applied to that is like so, what is this applied to those like?", and get meaningful, predictable answers.

 

[Bagpuss]

And then there is also the example of a playtest DM following the 4E DMG guidelines to resolve a special situation with a "trip-like" effect.

If you want to trip, you'll have to be sure to describe it within the situation of the combat and have the DM use these guidelines to get there. It's possible that the DM rules the situation with a different mechanic then you had hoped for, but if the end effect is still that you get a chance to drop someone on his ass, then you get your trip.

Or you pick the power, and can use it once per encounter without any further constraints...

Yeah I recall an example from a playtest or review where a character kicked a table out from under two opponents, and the DM ruled it as a Attack roll vs Reflex, success leaving the opponents prone. No need for a power just the right circumstances.

The power just lets the player dictate the a suitable circumstance once an encounter.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Even though it shows my ignorance of the problem due to never having had one of those in one of my games...but what's the big problem about the combination of Spiked Chain and Improved Trip? What happened at real table games that makes this combination so overpowering? On paper, it looks like somebody has to put a decent stat in Int (13), burn two feats to get Improved Trip and a third to learn Exotic Weapon Spiked Chain to get there. To my eyes, that is quite a character investment, and should return some rewards. So what does this combo enable a character to do that makes it so broken in practical play?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

After reading through this, I've realized something important - I like tripping. I like tripping and disarming and tanglefoot bagging and grease spells, and it doesn't get monotonous when I play a "trip monkey" character, because it's really a "support monkey" who uses combinations of all of the above plus more to reduce the effectiveness of an enemy for the other team members.

I like tripping when I'm running a game and my players do it, too. I don't like the true monotony that for me comes from swing hit swing miss swing hit but displaced swing we're finally done. The 3e rules were by no means perfect, but they worked for creative combat solutions if they were needed.

And the only broken tripper I've ever seen was a 3.0 Lasher which sucked for various reasons only tangentally related to the basic trip mechanics. If brokenness was a concern, the only houserule I would need to make to bring down the power and keep the ability just where I like it thematicly would be to say that you can trip (or disarm, grapple or bull rush) under the same set of circumstances where you can sneak attack.

 

[Bagpuss]

It's not so bad against some critters, four legged, flying, etc. But against most bipeds the players face it reduces them to a joke.

The enemy closes, the spiked chain player AoO's, then when they fall he gets an extra attack. Then when they get up, every player next to them gets an extra attack, and the player with the spiked chain gets a free attack. You opponent has lost an attack getting up (either using his standard action, as he moved in that turn, or losing the full attack action).

So not only does the spiked chain guy get 2 extra attacks, all his friends get an extra attack so you end you with the players getting an advantage of plus 3 or more attacks over the target. It's just too strong when it does work.

So the DM then either has to throw things at the players that can't be tripped, making the spiked chain guy feel he's being picked on and resentful, and the DM resigns himself to never using bipedal opponents. Or the DM presents the party with bipedal opponents and lets the spiked chain party cakewalk them.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Ah, thanks...sounds like this is something done by 3.5 again...got to check the handbooks. Standing up from Prone in 3.0 doesn't provoke an AoO, so the whole scene would look different. *digs out 3.5 handbooks to verify this*

Edit: Yep, that's a 3.5 symptom. Ah well...